If you lock it in for 20 years then the rest of the world won't use it for 20 years, if they ever use it at all. Your invention does not sound compelling enough to spend money on.
Many cameras (including the ones I refer to) are on live full-time internet feed.
I live at the beach. People put their keys someplace when they go in the water, or they take the keys in the water. The cameras are on full-time internet feed. Someone can sit across town, watch a 'key-hider', and go grab the car. People in general do not see or know about the cameras.
Well, it's dumb to hide one's keys. As I said, someone could just be sitting around nearby and watching through binoculars or some such. However, people should know that they could be being watched by anyone anywhere in the world.
Now, you could argue that making public information more public isn't really a change in your privacy (in fact, that pretty much sums up all your arguments), but on that point we have a fundamental disagreement. I think I can make you change your mind by placing a full-time internet feed camera focussed on every window in your house. Hey - the cameras are only seeing things that could be seen in public anyway, right?
If someone did that I'd rig lasers pointed at them all.:D
Seriously, though, what goes on in my house is not public information, so that would not simply be making that information more public. I have every reason to make use of countermeasures against such invasions of privacy, including the use of lasers to blind cameras that are pointed at me.
I find that very very wrong. And continuous internet broadcasting via web-cams of public areas is the area I think must be considered carefully for the positives the community gains from having such a camera (beach cameras only benefit people who do not live there - and invade the privacy of those who do live there), against the privacy invasions they bring with them.
In my opinion, feeds from security and traffic cameras should never be publicly accessible. They can easily be abused. Further, if a hidden camera is found in a public place (as opposed to a security camera conspicuously mounted on a pole or some such, so it's obviously there), it should be legal to remove the camera, and, if you do, it should legally become your property. Note that hidden cameras on one's person do not qualify (that's not a public place), nor do hidden cameras in stores (that's not a public place either), nor do traffic cameras (they're conspicuous).
Come to think of it, I would imagine the laser light coming frmo the shooter would obscue the target's vision, making it ahrd to return fire accurately.
That's in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Well, it's a matter of debate whether they're useful, I'm sure lots of shooters disagree on this. It's not always three feet, close quarters can include targets on the other side of a 20 foot room for example.
Is that still considered close-quarters? That's a pretty good distance away, and obviously far enough for a laser sight to be helpful.
Now Microsoft not only changes license terms for security fixes, they even charge cash for them! Might I remind everyone reading that this is what's called extortion, which is quite illegal.
This also means that there will be a lot more DDoS zombie machines on the Internet. Previously, many people would quickly patch their machines before getting exploited, and run some anti-virus software or something if they did get exploited, which significantly reduced the number of zombie machines out there. Now, they can't patch their machines (a lot of people don't have the $16M to pay Microsoft for the latest version of Windows plus security "insurance" for it). In short order, more than 90% of all Windows machines on the Internet will have a well-known security vulnerability, and will likely be DDoS zombies as a result.
Now those damn packet warriors on IRC will be able to take out not only my dialup, but my whole f***ing ISP. Great.
This reply basically assumes that if one person watches me from a short distance away (eyesight distance), it presents the same privacy compromise as if everyone in the world watches me from a long distance away using a video linkup.
Last time I checked, everyone in the world did not have a video linkup to traffic and security cameras.
Further, it is also the same as if the video feed were recorded, and could be played back, and computer analyzed for content.
It can be played back and analyzed for content within the head(s) of anyone who was watching. They have to tell everyone else what they saw, rather than being able to simply play back the recording such that everyone else can see it. However, that does not mean that a person's eyes and brain can't be used as a recording device.
My personal issue with this comes with cameras at beaches where I live. They can see someone hiding a key under their car (even if no person is in a direct line of sight).
Why would anyone hide a key under their car? Who is monitoring the cameras -- cops or civilians? If it's a cop monitoring the camera, what can (s)he do with that information that can't be done with a slimjim? How can you be sure that no one is in line of sight?
They can see your six year old daughter playing unsupervised because she slipped away.
And call the cops if someone kidnaps her, or tell you where she is if you can't find her. It's also possible for them to kidnap her, but she's far more likely to be kidnapped by someone with direct line of sight.
These present REAL risks, and increased exposure can have dramatic effects on the outcome.
If you put your car keys under a car they're for, and don't keep an eye or ear on your six-year-old daughter, you are a fool and frankly deserve that increased exposure.
My feeling is that you have to draw the line somewhere. The detraction from REAL privacy loss must be weighed against the community good from having the camera. In many cases, this balance weighs far too heavily on the privacy loss side.
My feeling is that maybe the privacy loss will force you to stop being an idiot and carry out your responsibilities (such as keeping your daughter and car keys safe).
in a close quarters tactical situation nobody stares at their own chest
In a close-quarters tactical situation, laser dots (visible or otherwise) are not important to begin with, because it's quite obvious where the beam is coming from. It's doubtful that anyone would be using one in such a situation either; who the hell needs a laser sight when the target is 3 feet away?
In other words, the brain doesn't do at all what a video camera pointed at a given area does, making a wealth of cameras blanketing an area quantitatively different from a bunch of people walking through that area intent on their daily tasks.
What if their daily tasks involve observing my every move?
There are laws against such behavior, of course. What if, instead of following you around, I just arranged to have a bunch of video cameras placed in your path. Wouldn't that still be stalking?
I don't know the legal definition of stalking (which, as with most laws, probably varies between jurisdictions), so I am not qualified to answer that. I would certainly feel stalked, though.
Guess what? The brain (lossily and selectively) records what the eyes see. Hence, there is no way to watch without recording, even if not using any sort of technological means (i.e., a camera) to do so.
Yes, people can see you when you're walking about your daily business, but mutant superpowers aside, they're not watching you intently and making a file of everywhere you visit and everything you do.
One does not need a camera or other such device to do that. It's quite tedious and error-prone to do so, but all one needs is one's eyes, and a pen and paper.
If every day when you left the house, I started following you with a digital video camera and stopped only when you returned home, I'd just bet that you'd feel I was invading your privacy.
I'd feel you were stalking me, but I wouldn't feel as though you were invading my privacy. I'm in public; I have no privacy there.
Unless you're some sort of exhibitionist freak, of course.
Use nuclear batteries instead. These are batteries which use some amount of nuclear waste. The radiation from the waste is converted into usable (usually electrical) energy. Because the radiation is emitted at a slow and steady rate, it would be difficult if not impossible to make an explosive or other high-energy device from one. One would need to somehow greatly accelerate the process of radioactive decay to do that. As far as I know, no such method exists.
Investors don't like to hear that, but then I suppose, it's hard to keep fear from the equation.
That's because investors are bean-counters. Bean-counters are, by definition, paranoid. Paranoid people are, by definition, fearful.
Don't bother with investors. They've become quite useless to ethically managed companies after they got bit by the dot-coms. Even if they do invest in you, they're likely to use their new stake in your company to fire you and replace you with someone as unethical and paranoid as them. They don't trust nice guys like you, because, as the old saying goes, "nice guys finish last".
Until they change the non-gratis license to also include a non-compete clause. Since they have the audacity to add this to the gratis license, they cannot be trusted not to add it to the non-gratis license as well, at some point in the future (when they were well-established and have many paying customers). With this change in the gratis EULA, it is clear that Larry McVoy has no qualm with the use of arm-twisting and coercion for the purpose of extracting cash from (potential) customers.
This means that, once BK is well-established, Larry McVoy will no longer need Linus Torvalds to give BK cheap publicity, and will be quick to screw Linus over with another retroactive license change (such as license fees proportional to the number of users of the resulting product, along the lines of the patent license fees for MP3).
he has a business to run, and staff to pay, and it's perfectly reasonable for him to take steps to protect that.
And his idea of that protection is to generate a pile of negative publicity, about his company and himself, by attempting underhanded tactics with his EULA? After Microsoft took a serious beating on Slashdot for doing the same thing? Seems more like sabotage to me.
I almost forgot. By doing this, BitMovers has demonstrated the willingness and ability to screw over users of BitKeeper. A passage from pages 72-73 of "Weaving the Web" by Tim Berners-Lee tells a strikingly similar tale, as he describes why Gopher was superseded so completely by the Web:
"It was just about this time, spring 1993, that the University of Minnesota decided that it would ask for a license fee from certain classes of users who wanted to use gopher. Since the gopher software being picked up so widely, the university was going to charge an annual fee. The browser, and the act of browsing, would be free, and the server software would remain free to nonprofit and educational institutions. But any other users, notably companies, would have to pay to use gopher server software.
"This was an act of treason in the academic community and the Internet community. Even if the university never charged anyone a dime, the fact that the school had announced it was reserving the right to charge people for the use of the gopher protocols meant it had crossed the line. To use the technology was too risky. Industry dropped gopher like a hot potato."
So many people here are getting all upset because BitKeeper is not free. Well, there's nothing wrong with trying to make money off of some software, while helping the community at the same time.
I agree, but that's not what's happening here. BitMovers is retroactively increasing the restrictiveness of its license. That doesn't help anyone, and it has the potential to hurt the community badly.
I know this only affects the "free" BK license. I don't care. It's still a bait-and-switch tactic, and that's low. Doubly so if you consider the price of the "alternative" (the license you pay for). I challenge you to find twenty Open Source developers with that kind of money to waste.
No. Wrong. When Microsoft introduced extortionist clauses into the EULAs for its security patches, there was an uproar on Slashdot over it, despite the fact that the security patches are for products which cost money (and a lot of it, too).
Sun doesn't want Java used in nuclear power plants for a very simple reason, and it's nothing sneaky. They don't want the massive liability, loss of revenue, and really really reallybad press if Java were to screw up somehow and cause the reactor(s) to explode.
Granted, all of this is just a remote possibility; they also say that if you use it, you are solely responsible for any damage (nuclear disasters or otherwise) that happens as a result. Still, it seems prudent for a company with as much to lose as Sun to avoid taking unnecessary risks.
Any disinfectant that kills all bacteria it encounters is probably not safe for human consumption, because of all of those wonderful digestive bacteria that live in the intestines and provide their host with indispensible aid in digesting food. I don't remember exactly what happens if they're killed, but suffice it to say, it's bad.
Slashdot Mirror
If you lock it in for 20 years then the rest of the world won't use it for 20 years, if they ever use it at all. Your invention does not sound compelling enough to spend money on.
Seriously, though, what goes on in my house is not public information, so that would not simply be making that information more public. I have every reason to make use of countermeasures against such invasions of privacy, including the use of lasers to blind cameras that are pointed at me.
In my opinion, feeds from security and traffic cameras should never be publicly accessible. They can easily be abused. Further, if a hidden camera is found in a public place (as opposed to a security camera conspicuously mounted on a pole or some such, so it's obviously there), it should be legal to remove the camera, and, if you do, it should legally become your property. Note that hidden cameras on one's person do not qualify (that's not a public place), nor do hidden cameras in stores (that's not a public place either), nor do traffic cameras (they're conspicuous).This also means that there will be a lot more DDoS zombie machines on the Internet. Previously, many people would quickly patch their machines before getting exploited, and run some anti-virus software or something if they did get exploited, which significantly reduced the number of zombie machines out there. Now, they can't patch their machines (a lot of people don't have the $16M to pay Microsoft for the latest version of Windows plus security "insurance" for it). In short order, more than 90% of all Windows machines on the Internet will have a well-known security vulnerability, and will likely be DDoS zombies as a result.
Now those damn packet warriors on IRC will be able to take out not only my dialup, but my whole f***ing ISP. Great.
What if whomever you don't want to see the beam also has night vision?
Use nuclear batteries instead. These are batteries which use some amount of nuclear waste. The radiation from the waste is converted into usable (usually electrical) energy. Because the radiation is emitted at a slow and steady rate, it would be difficult if not impossible to make an explosive or other high-energy device from one. One would need to somehow greatly accelerate the process of radioactive decay to do that. As far as I know, no such method exists.
Don't bother with investors. They've become quite useless to ethically managed companies after they got bit by the dot-coms. Even if they do invest in you, they're likely to use their new stake in your company to fire you and replace you with someone as unethical and paranoid as them. They don't trust nice guys like you, because, as the old saying goes, "nice guys finish last".
This means that, once BK is well-established, Larry McVoy will no longer need Linus Torvalds to give BK cheap publicity, and will be quick to screw Linus over with another retroactive license change (such as license fees proportional to the number of users of the resulting product, along the lines of the patent license fees for MP3).
I know this only affects the "free" BK license. I don't care. It's still a bait-and-switch tactic, and that's low. Doubly so if you consider the price of the "alternative" (the license you pay for). I challenge you to find twenty Open Source developers with that kind of money to waste.
No. Wrong. When Microsoft introduced extortionist clauses into the EULAs for its security patches, there was an uproar on Slashdot over it, despite the fact that the security patches are for products which cost money (and a lot of it, too).
Granted, all of this is just a remote possibility; they also say that if you use it, you are solely responsible for any damage (nuclear disasters or otherwise) that happens as a result. Still, it seems prudent for a company with as much to lose as Sun to avoid taking unnecessary risks.
Remember that while it has all those big batteries in it, it doesn't have an equally big internal-combustion engine.
How about 'Troll' or 'Overrated' ?
By extension, throw them all in mental institutions.
Any disinfectant that kills all bacteria it encounters is probably not safe for human consumption, because of all of those wonderful digestive bacteria that live in the intestines and provide their host with indispensible aid in digesting food. I don't remember exactly what happens if they're killed, but suffice it to say, it's bad.
There's also television ratings for media broadcasters, but you've got the idea.